School education quality index 153

lIst OF FIgUREsFigure 4: Large States: Outcomes Category and Domain-specific Performance, 2016-17 28Figure 5: Small States: Outcomes Category and Domain-specific Performance, 2016-17 29

2019

Inclusive development hinges upon ensuring quality education Proper schooling prepares individuals for social and civic responsibility, builds social capital and encourages effective cognitive development

The idea of a New India envisages an enlightened citizenry, an India where public policy is proactively engaging with an aspirational population Internationally, achieving the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) constitutes a global resolve for holistic socio-economic progress As the nodal agency for tracking and coordinating the implementation of the SDGs in India and as per its mandate to promote cooperative and competitive federalism, NITI Aayog has continuously endeavoured to evolve national indices which chart the pathway to an inclusive, sustainable and prosperous tomorrow

The School Education Quality Index (SEQI) has been developed to provide insights and data-based feedback on the success of school education across the States and Union Territories of India The index attempts to provide a platform for promoting evidence-based policy making and highlights possible course-corrections in the education sector

While the Right to Education Act ensured access to education for all children, there is a felt need

to improve the quality of education and service delivery Data from assessments such as the National Achievement Survey and the Annual Status of Education Report reinforces the need for system-level interventions across the school education system, with a focus on improving grade-level competency and ensuring that India’s schooling system delivers on learning outcomes

The measurement of quality-related education outcomes is imperative for incentivizing States and Union Territories to improve the performance of their school systems Initiatives of the NITI Aayog such as the Sustainable Action for Transforming Human capital – Education (SATH-E) further emphasise the need for innovative policy design customised to the unique needs of the States Developed in close partnership with the Ministry of Human Resource Development, States and Union Territories, the World Bank and sector experts, SEQI aims to provide a credible regular assessment of the performance and effectiveness of policy interventions across all States and Union Territories

The development of SEQI was a collaborative and participatory exercise spanning over eighteen months and included consultations with experts in school education, statistics and the development sector In the true spirit of federalism, the index involved extensive engagement with the States and Union Territories for finalisation of the indicators, sensitisation workshops on methodology, data collection and validation

Quality school education is a function of a targeted focus on learning outcomes, efficient governance structures, provision of necessary infrastructure and ensuring equitable academic opportunities SEQI exists in a symbiotic ecosystem, which converges efforts across the Government to evolve an education landscape which resonates with the ideals of a youthful nation and which realises the potential of every single child across India

The School Education Quality Index (SEQI) was the result of extensive consultations across the education space The NITI Aayog is grateful to the State Governments and Union Territories for their support and assistance throughout the process of finalising the index State nodal officers, departmental officials and local resource teams provided crucial inputs and constant feedback which helped develop the index framework, as well as compile and validate the various streams of data

The NITI Aayog would like to thank the Union Ministry of Human Resource Development, under the leadership of Ms Rina Ray, Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, for its partnership and support throughout the entire course of the index development process

NITI acknowledges and appreciates the technical assistance provided by the World Bank, led by Mr Junaid Kamal Ahmad, World Bank Country Director, India and Mr Cristian Aedo, Education Practice Manager for South Asia, World Bank The design methodology was finalised

in consultation with Ms Shabnam Sinha, Lead Education Specialist; Ms Marguerite Clarke, Senior Education Specialist; Mr Kartik Pental, Education Specialist; Mr Varun Kapoor, Consultant; and

Mr Dhruv Gupta, Consultant

NITI Aayog is thankful to the peer reviewers, Professor Geeta Gandhi Kingdon, Chair of Education Economics and International Development, Institute of Education, University College London; Mr Shihab Ansari Azhar, Senior Private Sector Specialist, Macroeconomics, Trade and Investments, World Bank and Ms Tazeen Fasih, Lead Education Specialist, South Asia Region, World Bank, for the quality review of the index

The Education and Skills Development team of IPE Global, the Independent Validation Agency (IVA), was led by Mr Shalendar Sharma, Director; Dr Shashiranjan Jha, Senior Manager; and Ms Manisha Bhattacharjee, Senior Analyst The online interactive data portal for SEQI was developed by SilverTouch Technologies, led by Mr Vipul Thakkar, Managing Director; Mr Himanshu Jain, Director;

Ms Surbhi Singhal, Senior Business Analyst; and Mr Kalpesh Zankat, Software Developer

The project was designed and executed under the overall guidance of Dr Rajiv Kumar, Vice-Chairman, NITI Aayog and Mr Amitabh Kant, CEO, NITI Aayog The Education Vertical, led by

Mr Alok Kumar, Adviser; Ms Sigy Thomas Vaidhyan, former Director; Mr Ashish Kumar, Director;

Mr Harshit Mishra, Deputy Adviser; and Ms Sarah Iype, Young Professional, planned, implemented, and co-ordinated the entire project Mr KVL Akshay, Young Professional, helped design and edit the report

CAL Computer Aided Learning

CWSN Children with Special Needs

DIET District Institute of Education and Training

DoSEL Department of School Education and Literacy

ICT Information and Communications Technology

IEP Individualized Education Program

IVA Independent Validation Agency

MHRD Ministry of Human Resource Development

MIS Management Information System

NA Not Applicable

NAS National Achievement Survey

NCERT National Council of Education Research and TrainingNER Net Enrolment Ratio

NIEPA National Institute of Education Planning and Administration NITI National Institution for Transforming India

NPSSE National Programme on School Standards and Evaluation NSQF National Skills Qualification Framework

OBC Other Backward Classes

OoSC Out of School Children

PAB Project Approval Board

PTR Pupil Teacher Ratio

RMSA Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan

RTE Right to Education

SC Scheduled Caste

SCERT State Council of Education Research and Training

SDMIS Student Data Management Information System

SDP School Development Plan

SEQI School Education Quality Index

SL School Leadership

SSA Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan

ST Scheduled Tribe

UID Unique Identification

UDISE Unified District Information System for Education

UT Union Territory

tABlE OF cOntEnts

lIst OF tABlEs

Table 11: Difference in Performance between Students in Rural and Urban Areas 68

Table 13: Difference in Transition Rate from Upper Primary to Secondary Level for SC and General Category 71Table 14: Difference in Transitions Rates from Upper Primary to Secondary Level for ST and General Category 72Table 15: Difference in Transition Rates from Upper Primary to Secondary Level for OBC and General Category 74Table 16: Difference in Transition Rates from Upper Primary to Secondary Level for Boys and Girls 75

Table 21: Percentage of Teachers whose Unique ID is Seeded in Any Electronic Database 82Table 22: Percentage of Average Daily Attendance of Teachers Recorded in an Electronic Attendance System 83

Table 24: Percentage of Academic Positions filled at State Level Academic Training Institutions – SCERTs or Equivalent 90Table 25: Percentage of Academic Positions Filled at District Level Academic Training Institutions - DIETs 92Table 26: Percentage of School Head-Masters/Principals who have Completed School Leadership (SL) Training 94

Table 28: Percentage of Schools that have Made School Improvement/Development Plans 97Table 29: Average Number of Days Taken by State/UT to Release Total Central Share of Funds to Societies 98Table 30: Average Number of Days Taken by State to Release Total State Share of Funds to Societies 99Table 31: Percentage of New Teachers Recruited Through a Transparent Online System 101Table 32: Percentage of Teachers Transferred Through a Transparent Online System 102Table 33: Percentage of Head-Masters/Principals Recruited Through a Merit-Based Selection System 103

lIst OF FIgUREs

Figure 4: Large States: Outcomes Category and Domain-specific Performance, 2016-17 28Figure 5: Small States: Outcomes Category and Domain-specific Performance, 2016-17 29

Figure 7: Large States: Overall Performance Score and Rank, 2015-16 and 2016-17 33Figure 8: Small States: Overall Performance Score and Rank, 2015-16 and 2016-17 34

Figure 16: Large States: Change in Performance on the Infrastructure & Facilities for Outcomes Domain 41Figure 17: Small States: Change in Performance on the Infrastructure & Facilities for Outcomes Domain 42Figure 18: UTs: Change in Performance on the Infrastructure & Facilities for Outcomes Domain 42

Figure 22: Large States: Change in Performance on the Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes Category 46Figure 23: Small States: Change in Performance on the Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes Category 47Figure 24: UTs: Change in Performance on the Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes Category 48Figure 25: Average Score in Class 3 for Language & Mathematics – Large States 50Figure 26: Average Score in Class 3 for Language & Mathematics – Small States and UTs 51Figure 27: Average Score in Class 5 for Language & Mathematics – Large States 51Figure 28: Average Score in Class 5 for Language & Mathematics – Small States and UTs 52Figure 29: Average Score in Class 8 for Language & Mathematics – Large States 53Figure 30: Average Score in Class 8 for Language & Mathematics – Small States and UTs 53

Figure 35: Transition Rate from Primary to Upper-Primary Level – Large States 56Figure 36: Transition Rate from Primary to Upper-Primary Level – Small States and UTs 57Figure 37: Transition Rate from Upper-Primary to Secondary Level – Large States 57

Figure 40: Percentage of Identified Out-of-School Children Mainstreamed – Small States and UTs 59Figure 41: Percentage of Schools having CAL at Elementary Level – Large States 60Figure 42: Percentage of Schools having CAL at Elementary Level – Small States and UTs 61Figure 43: Percentage of Secondary Schools with Computer Lab Facility – Large States 61Figure 44: Percentage of Secondary Schools with Computer Lab Facility – Small States and UTs 62Figure 45: Percentage of Schools having Book Banks/Reading Rooms/Libraries – Large States 63Figure 46: Percentage of Schools having Book Banks/Reading Rooms/Libraries – Small States and UTs 63Figure 47: Percentage of Elementary Schools Meeting Teacher Norms – Large States 85Figure 48: Percentage of Elementary Schools Meeting Teacher Norms – Small States and UTs 85Figure 49: Percentage of Upper-Primary Schools Meeting Subject-Teacher Norms – Large States 86Figure 50: Percentage of Upper-Primary Schools Meeting Subject-Teacher Norms – Small States and UTs 87Figure 51: Percentage of Secondary Schools with Teachers for All Core Subjects – Large States 87Figure 52: Percentage of Secondary Schools with Teachers for All Core Subjects – Small States and UTs 88

Figure 54: Percentage of Schools with Head-Master/Principal – Small States and UTs 89Figure 55: Percentage of Teachers Provided with Sanctioned Number of Days of Training – Large States 93Figure 56: Percentage of Teachers Provided with Sanctioned Number of Days of Training – Small States and UTs 94

EXEcUtIVE sUmmARY

About the Index

The School Education Quality Index (SEQI) was developed to evaluate the performance of States and Union Territories (UTs) in the school education sector The index aims to bring an outcomes focus to education policy by providing States and UTs with a platform to identify their strengths and weaknesses and undertake requisite course corrections or policy interventions In line with NITI Aayog’s mandate to foster the spirit of competitive and cooperative federalism, the index strives to facilitate the sharing of knowledge and best practices across States and UTs

Developed through a collaborative process including key stakeholders such as MHRD, the World Bank and sector experts, the index consists of 30 critical indicators that assess the delivery of quality education These indicators are categorized as follows:

category 2: governance Processes Aiding Outcomes

Schooling should result in tangible learning outcomes To ensure the system is geared towards learning, SEQI assigns almost half its weight to learning outcomes This sends a strong signal across the nation to ensure the focus remains centred on learning

SEQI focuses on indicators that drive improvements in the quality of education rather than on inputs or specific processes The index thus seeks to institutionalise a focus on improving education outcomes with respect to learning, access, equity and governance in India

To facilitate like-to-like comparisons, States and UTs have been grouped as Large States, Small States and UTs Within each of these groups, the indicator values have been appropriately scaled, normalized and weighted to generate an overall performance score and ranking for each State and UT

States and UTs are ranked on their overall performance in the reference year 2016-17, as well as on the change in their performance between the reference year and base year (2015-16) The rankings present incredible insights on the status of school education across States/UTs and their relative progress over time

key Results

36.4 percent for Uttar Pradesh

small states and Uts: Among Small States, the overall performance score varied from 68.8 percent for

Manipur to 24.6 percent for Arunachal Pradesh In UTs, the overall performance score ranged from 82.9 percent for Chandigarh to 31.9 percent for Lakshadweep

Figure A: large states: Overall and category-wise Performance, 2016-17

Tamil Nadu Telangana

Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand

Overall Performance

Outcomes Category

Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes Category

there are large variations in the overall scores for states and Uts as well as in how they perform in different category areas in the reference year (2016-17) 1.

Note: The Outcomes Category score for Himachal Pradesh is 55.6 percent and Madhya Pradesh is 46.0 percent.

Most States and UTs perform better on Outcomes than on Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes, but there is variation within these categories in terms of specific areas of strength and weakness It is, therefore, important for States and UTs to strengthen their capacity to address their specific areas for improvement.

large states: Out of the 20 Large States, 18 improved their overall performance score between 2015-16

and 2016-17 Five of these States (Haryana, Assam, Uttar Pradesh, Odisha, Gujarat) showed high rates of improvement, with increases of 18.5, 16.8, 13.7, 12.4 and 10.6 percentage points respectively

Figure B: small states and Uts: Overall and category-wise Performance, 2016-17

Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes Category

A small group of states and Uts significantly outpace all others in their rates

of improvement

2.

Note: The Outcomes Category score for Andaman & Nicobar Islands is 40.8 percent, Meghalaya is 39.2 percent and Mizoram

is 50.8 percent.

Jammu & Kashmir

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Figure c: large states: Overall Performance and Rank, 2015-16 and 2016-17

small states: Among the eight Small States, five showed an improvement in their overall performance

Figure D: small states: Overall Performance and Rank, 2015-16 and 2016-17

Figure E: Uts: Overall Performance and Rank, 2015-16 and 2016-17

2015-16 and 2016-17 Three of them (Daman & Diu, Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Puducherry) stood out for the size of the increase, with gains of 16.5, 15.0 and 14.3 percentage points, respectively

Daman & Diu

Dadra & Nagar

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

It is important to note that most of the States and UTs have shown commendable improvement between the base and reference years The better performing States/UTs highlight the proven efficacy of reform and offer alternate policy prescriptions for similar States/UTs

large states: Karnataka leads the Large States on the Outcomes category, with a score of 81.9 percent

Uttar Pradesh scores the lowest at 34.1 percent

Figure F: large states: Outcomes category and Domain-specific Performance, 2016-17

Tamil Nadu Telangana

Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand

Outcomes Category

Learning Outcomes Domain

Equity Outcomes Domain

Access Outcomes Domain

Infrastructure & Facilities for Outcomes Domain

Within the Outcomes category, there is a high degree of variation in state and

Ut performance on learning Outcomes, Access Outcomes and Infrastructure

& Facilities for Outcomes On the other hand, there is little variation in Equity Outcomes

3.

Note: The Equity Outcomes Domain score for Rajasthan is 79.4 percent.

small states and Uts: Manipur ranks first among the Small States on the Outcomes category, with

a score of 82.1 percent Arunachal Pradesh has the lowest score at 27.2 percent Chandigarh is the best performing UT on the Outcomes category, with a score of 88.4 percent, while Lakshadweep received the lowest score (28.9 percent)

Scores on the Outcomes category are primarily driven by Learning Outcomes, which receives more than

50 percent of the total weight assigned to this category In addition to the challenges of improving learning outcomes, the results highlight that educational access and infrastructure are continuing issues for States/UTs and require additional focus and investments

The Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes category accounts for about 30 percent of the overall score

It includes indicators related to student and teacher attendance systems, availability of in-service teacher professional development, school leadership, accountability, transparency in teacher recruitment and financial discipline

large states: Kerala leads the Large States in this category, with a score of 79.0 percent, while Jharkhand

has the lowest score of 21.0 percent

Learning Outcomes Domain

Equity Outcomes Domain

Access Outcomes Domain

Infrastructure & Facilities for Outcomes Domain

Figure g: small states and Uts: Outcomes category and Domain-specific Performance, 2016-17

In the governance Processes Aiding Outcomes category, overall performance

is primarily driven by scores for school leadership, teacher availability and transparency in teacher/school leader recruitment.

4.

Note: The Equity Outcomes Domain score for Chandigarh is 77.6, Goa is 68.5, Lakshadweep is 46.5 and Meghalaya is 43.1 The Infrastructure & Facilities for Outcomes Domain score for Delhi is 41.9.

Arunachal Pradesh ranks last with a score of 18.3 percent Chandigarh is the best-performing UT, with a score of 69.5 percent, while Dadra & Nagar Haveli received the lowest score of 33.5 percent

Investments to strengthen performance on Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes category indicators could have an immediate positive impact on a State/UT’s SEQI scores and, over the medium term, also enhance their education outcomes

Base Year (2015-16)

Reference Year (2016-17)

90% 80%

Figure I: small states and Uts: change in Performance on the governance Processes

Aiding Outcomes category

Daman & Diu

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

Andaman &

Nicobar Islands

Delhi Lakshadweep

SEQI is envisioned as a dynamic instrument that will continue to evolve Over time, the relevance of the existing indicators and the availability of data for new indicators will be factored into the index design In particular, the linkages between policy actions and SEQI indicators will be analyzed to reflect the efforts made by States and UTs to improve school education It is hoped that the index will help facilitate the sharing of best practices and drive improvements in the delivery of quality education across India

ABOUt tHE

InDEX

Aim and Purpose

SEQI aims to drive policy reforms that will improve the quality of school education The index seeks to institutionalise a focus on enhancing education outcomes by driving improvements in learning levels, access, equity, infrastructure and governance processes

The index recognises that school education is a subject on the Concurrent List and that State-level leadership is crucial for improving outcomes in a cost-effective manner The index will serve as a regular and transparent review of the status of school education quality across the States and UTs

Index categories and Domains

SEQI is based on a set of indicators that measure the overall effectiveness, quality and efficiency of the Indian school education system The index encourages States/UTs to improve their scores by showing progress across these aspects

table 1: summary of Index categories and Domains

list of Indicators, corresponding Weights and Data sources

table 2: Indicator Description

category 1: Outcomes Domain 1.1: learning Outcomes

s.no Indicator Weight Data source school management Valence

category 1: Outcomes Domain 1.2: Access Outcomes

1.2.3

Percentage of identified

Out-of-school children mainstreamed

in last completed academic year

(class 1 to 8)

category 1: Outcomes Domain 1.3: Infrastructure & Facilities for Outcomes

(a)

Percentage of schools having

Computer-Aided Learning (CAL) at

category 1: Outcomes Domain 1.4: Equity outcomes 1.4.1

Difference (Absolute value) in

performance between scheduled

caste (sc) and general category

s.no Indicator Weight Data source school management Valence 1.4.2

Difference (Absolute value) in

performance between scheduled

tribe (st) and general category

Difference (Absolute value) in

performance between students

studying in Rural and Urban areas

Difference (Absolute value) in

student performance between boys

and girls at Elementary level

Difference (Absolute value) in

transition Rate in all schools from

s.no Indicator Weight Data source school management Valence

1.4.6

Percentage of entitled children

With special needs (cWsn)

receiving aids and appliances

(class 1 to 10)

Note: This is measured against targets set

in the PAB minutes where the number of

students receiving aids/appliances is specified.

category 2: governance Processes Aiding Outcomes

Attendance

(a)

Percentage of children whose unique ID

is seeded in Student Data Management

Information System (SDMIS)

Percentage of teachers whose unique ID

is seeded in any electronic database of

the State Government/UT Administration

(Class 1 to 12)

10

(b)

Percentage of average daily attendance

of teachers recorded in the electronic

2.5

Percentage of secondary schools

with teachers for all core subjects

(class 9 to 10)

Administrative adequacy

s.no Indicator Weight Data source school management Valence

training

2.7

Percentage of academic positions

filled in state and District academic

training institutions at the beginning

of the given academic year

Note: Measured against number of positions

approved/sanctioned by MHRD

2.8

Percentage of teachers provided

with sanctioned number of days of

training in the given financial year

(class 1 to 10)

2.9

Percentage of head-masters/

principals who have completed

school leadership training in the

given financial year (class 1 to 12)

Accountability & transparency 2.10

Percentage of schools that have

completed self-evaluation and made

school improvement/development

plans in the given financial year

(b)

Percentage of schools that have made

school improvement/development plans

Note: Includes only those self-evaluation

systems that are approved by the

DoSEL-MHRD.

15

2.11

timely release of funds

Note: Includes funds for both SSA and RMSA.

On release of Central share of funds, the

Central share is supposed to be transferred

to State implementation societies within 15

days and the State share is supposed to be

released to State implementation societies

within 30 days.

(a)

Average number of days taken by State/

UT to release total Central share of

funds to societies (during the previous

financial year)

5

(b)

Average number of days taken by

State to release total State share due

to State societies (during the previous

financial year)

Note: This indicator is not applicable for

UTs Most UTs do not contribute a State/

UT share and this reduces the ability to

5

s.no Indicator Weight Data source school management Valence

2.12

number of new teachers recruited

through a transparent online

recruitment system as a percentage

of total number of new teachers

recruited in the given financial year

Note: The transparent recruitment system

should include:

a) annual assessment of the teacher

demand – displayed online; b) written

test (may or may not be online); c) online

advertisement for recruitment; d) online

display of marks secured by all applicants;

e) online display of objective, merit-based

criteria for selection; f) transparent, online

counselling for teachers.

2.13

number of teachers transferred

through a transparent online

system as a percentage of total

number of teachers transferred in

the given year (class 1 to 12)

Note: The transparent online transfer system

should:

a) include a regular and annual transfer;

b) be done on an electronic and transparent

online system; c) include teacher preferences;

d) be based on an objective transfer policy

2.14

number of head-masters/principals

recruited through a merit-based

selection system as a percentage

of total number of head-masters/

principals recruited (in the given

financial year) (class 1 to 12)

Notes:

• based indicators for which there is no base year data and for which the reference year data is from 2017-18 The lack of base year data for NAS is because the 2017 survey is not comparable to previous cycles.

In general, base year refers to 2015-16 and reference year refers to 2016-17 The exceptions to this are the NAS-• If a State/UT did not submit data for a required indicator, a score of ‘Zero’ was assigned

• If an indicator is Not Applicable (NA) for a State/UT, it has been excluded from the calculation, and the weight reallocated to the remaining sub-indicators (if available) or to the entire domain/category.

state and Union territory categorization

States and UTs have been categorised into three groups – Large States, Small States and UTs to facilitate like-to-like comparison

table 3: grouping of states and Uts

Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Punjab Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand

Based on the scaled values (Si), the overall performance score has been calculated for each year after the application of indicator-wise weights (Wi):

States/UTs’ overall performance scores for a given year have been used to arrive at their ranking for that year The difference between the scores for reference and base years has been used to compute the change

in performance over time Therefore, the index presents two types of ranking: (i) overall performance (reference year ranking) and (ii) incremental performance (difference in overall performance between reference and base years)

Scaled value (Si) = [(Xi – Minimum value )×100]

[Maximum value – Minimum value]

Scaled value (Si) = [(Maximum value – Xi)×100]

[Maximum value – Minimum value]

Overall Performance Score(Year) = ∑Wi*Si

∑Wi

the Index Development Process

The idea of developing a quality index to rank States and UTs on their performance in school education originated in 2017 SEQI was conceptualized, designed and developed between July 2017 and February

2019, with the final report generated for publication in June 2019

table 4: timelines for the Development of sEQI

4

Validation of data and

workshops with States/

UTs

key stakeholders – Roles and Responsibilities

The index was developed through a highly collaborative exercise involving key stakeholders who supported the process of selecting, finalizing and assigning weights to indicators; collecting, cleaning and validating data and drafting the report

table 5: key stakeholder Roles and Responsibilities for Index Development

Independent Validation Agency (IVA)

Web Portal Developer

Provide inputs on SEQI indicators and weights

Provide inputs

on SEQI indicators and weights

Validation of data submitted by States/UTs

Development of web-series to link

data from ShaGun

portal to SEQI portal

Input the required

data on the ShaGun

portal

Analysis and visualization

of data collected and validated by the IVA

Review of supporting documents and participation in data validation workshops with States/UTs

Maintenance of online electronic records

Report

writing and

dissemination

Development of and facilitating

access to ShaGun

portal for collecting data from States/UTs

Coordination with different departments, Districts and the IVA;

Adopt and share SEQI with various departments

Drafting and finalizing the SEQI report;

Facilitating peer reviews

Generation and validation of SEQI scores and ranks;

and final data certification on the portal

Publishing of SEQI results on portal

Detailed deliberations on the indicators were held with MHRD, States/UTs administrators and sector experts through consultation workshops

table 6: Details of state/Ut consultation Workshops for sEQI

A ‘SEQI – The Success of Our Schools’ guidebook, detailing the indicators, scoring methodology, weights and data sources, was published in May 2018

Data collection

The data used to compute SEQI has been mostly sourced from publicly available data sources (published Unified District Information System for Education (UDISE) data and NAS (2017) results) Where data is not available in the public domain, duly verified information has been sought from the States and UTs

States/UTs appointed nodal officers for collating and submitting the data required for SEQI Data was

submitted online through the MHRD’s ShaGun portal and extracted into NITI Aayog’s online portal (http://

social.niti.gov.in/) Data from publicly available data sets and sources was directly fed into the system by the IVA The process of data entry and submission by the States and UTs began in April 2018 and ended in December 2018

Data Validation and score computation

Under the supervision of NITI Aayog, the data was validated and finalized by an Independent Validation Agency (IVA) The first level of verification was desk based and revealed differences across States and UTs

in the underlying sources and comparability of the data submitted for a few indicators To correct for these differences, the coverage of the affected indicators was revised to help improve comparability and to ensure the data is sourced from publicly available sources

The second round of verification focused on data directly submitted by the States and UTs This data was not publicly available and pertained to the Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes category indicators The IVA organized workshops where the data requirements and calculation methodologies were explained

to participating States/UTs, who provided documentary evidence for the data submitted A few indicators were subsequently dropped from the index as verifiable documentary proof for the data was not available

in some States/UTs

table 7: Details of state/Ut Data Validation Workshops

Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand

Via Video-conferencing (For States/

UTs that were unable to attend the

workshops in New Delhi)

The finalised data was then used by the IVA to calculate scaled values, overall performance scores and ranks The validation agency also validated the scores and ranks that were simultaneously generated in the online portal hosted by NITI Aayog This served as a mechanism to cross-check the index scores and ranks

To ensure that all index data points remain consistent with published data sources and evidence

ƒ

submitted by the States and UTs, some indicators had to be modified As a result, while most indicators cover only the performance of Government-managed schools, a few cover all school types (Government, Government Aided and privately managed) (see Annexure II for further details)

mAIn FInDIngs

OVERAll PERFORmAncE

Reference Year (2016-17) Performance

Overall Performance on Outcomes and governance

Overall performance is the weighted aggregate of a State or UT’s performance on the two categories: (i) Outcomes and (ii) Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes

The Outcomes category comprises four domains: (a) Learning Outcomes, (b) Access Outcomes, (c) Infrastructure & Facilities for Outcomes and (d) Equity Outcomes Scores on this category are primarily driven by Learning Outcomes, which receives more than 50 percent of the total weight assigned to this category

The Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes category includes indicators related to student and teacher attendance systems, teacher and administrative adequacy, training, as well as accountability and transparency Scores on this category are primarily driven by a State’s performance on indicators related

to school leadership, teacher availability and transparency in teacher/school leader recruitment

A large states

Kerala, Rajasthan, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat and Assam are the best-performing Large States, each achieving an overall performance score above 60.0 percent Kerala has the highest overall performance score of 76.6 percent Uttar Pradesh ranks last among the Large States, with an overall performance score

of 36.4 percent

States’ overall performance may hide variations in their performance on the underlying categories Of the 20 Large States, 10 perform better on the Outcomes category, with the most noticeable performance differences observed in the cases of Karnataka, Jharkhand and Andhra Pradesh The other Large States perform better on the Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes category, with the most noticeable performance differences observed in the cases of Odisha, Punjab and Haryana

In the Outcomes category, Karnataka leads the Large States, with a score of 81.9 percent while Uttar Pradesh has the lowest score of 34.1 percent In the Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes category, Kerala has the highest score of 79.0 percent while Jharkhand comes in last with a score of 21.0 percent

Figure 1: large states: Overall and category-wise Performance, 2016-17

Tamil Nadu Telangana

Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand

Of the eight Small States, seven perform better on the Outcomes category, with the most noticeable performance differences observed in the cases of Manipur, Tripura and Goa Sikkim is the only Small State that performs better on the Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes category

Manipur ranks first among the Small States on the Outcomes category, with a score of 82.1 percent Arunachal Pradesh has the lowest score, at 27.2 percent In the Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes category, Mizoram has the highest score of 47.5 percent while Arunachal Pradesh ranks last with a score

of 18.3 percent

Note: The Outcomes Category score for Himachal Pradesh is 55.6 percent and Madhya Pradesh is 46.0 percent.

Figure 2: small states: Overall and category-wise Performance, 2016-17

Of the seven UTs, four perform better on the Outcomes category, with the most noticeable performance difference observed in Dadra & Nagar Haveli Delhi, Daman & Diu and Lakshadweep perform better on the Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes category

Consistent with its overall score, Chandigarh is also the best-performing UT on the Outcomes and Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes categories, with scores of 88.4 percent and 69.5 percent respectively Lakshadweep received the lowest score (28.9 percent) on the Outcomes category while Dadra & Nagar Haveli received the lowest score (33.5 percent) on the Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes category

Note: The Outcomes Category score for Meghalaya is 39.2 percent and Mizoram is 50.8 percent.

Figure 3: Uts: Overall and category-wise Performance, 2016-17

Domain-specific Performance on Outcomes

There is a high degree of variation in States’ and UTs’ performance on three of the domains that make up the Outcomes category: Learning Outcomes, Access Outcomes and Infrastructure & Facilities for Outcomes

In contrast, there is little variation among States and UTs in their Equity Outcomes

States’ and UTs’ performance on Learning Outcomes is driven by their results on the NAS 2017 Their performance on Access Outcomes is primarily driven by enrolment ratios at the secondary level and transition rates from upper-primary to secondary level In terms of Infrastructure & Facilities for Outcomes, States’ and UTs’ performance is strongly linked to the presence of CAL at the elementary level and vocational education at the secondary and senior-secondary level

Governance Processes Aiding Outcomes Category

Note: The Outcomes Category score for Andaman & Nicobar Islands is 40.8 percent.